On 5/28/19 8:12 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote: > We have a bunch of headers without multiple inclusion guards. Some are > clearly intentional, some look accidental. Too many for me to find out > by examining each of them, so I'm asking their maintainers. > > Why do I ask? I'd like to mark the intentional ones and fix the > accidental ones, so they don't flunk "make check-headers" from "[RFC v4 > 0/7] Baby steps towards saner headers" just because they lack multiple > inclusion guards. > > Just in case: what's a multiple inclusion guard? It's > > #ifndef UNIQUE_GUARD_SYMBOL_H > #define UNIQUE_GUARD_SYMBOL_H > ... > #endif > > with nothing but comments outside the conditional, so that the header > can safely be included more than once. > > I append the alphabetical list of headers without multiple inclusion > guards (as reported by scripts/clean-header-guards -nv), followed by the > same list sorted into maintainer buckets. If you're cc'ed, please find > your bucket(s), and tell me which headers intentionally lack guards. > [...] > > EDK2 Firmware > M: Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> > M: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@redhat.com> > tests/uefi-test-tools/UefiTestToolsPkg/Include/Guid/BiosTablesTest.h
This file has a guard in non-standard formats: #ifndef __BIOS_TABLES_TEST_H__ #define __BIOS_TABLES_TEST_H__ ...
